Just looking for opinions on this lens, looks like a lens I could have some fun with. I find that I always use the FA 100-300mm f4.7-5.8 at the long end so the idea of a faster aperture and a tripod mount is very appealing to me. I would prefer the F* over the FA* because of the tripod mount.

Sure wish I owned one, even though I have the A*300. The tripod mount would be nice, but the A*300 is light enough for me to handhold most of the time. Only problem is that it's a manual focus - urrr!

Harriet

I have determined that my MF skills are woefully inadequate, I will use the MF macro lens and the A 70-210mm f4 because they are so good that they are worth the effort of focusing them but other than that, give me AF!! I even went so far as remove the split image focus screen from the DS and put the stock one back, I will rely on the beep for any future MF.

It's funny - I can't "see" the focus with the kit lens or the DA 50-200 and will almost always get it wrong if I try to manually focus them.I was actually surprised I could focus the A*300 as well as I do - it helps that the lens is so sharp.

I understand that the F and FA are equally sharp, and that AF sure would be nice (and this from someone who just bought another manual focus lens!).

Ira, you have been bitten. For your own best, don't try any expensive wines or Armani suits.

(I'm dreaming of the F* 300 as well, and the Limited 31. Expensive dreams. Unfortunately it's not so easy to appreciate the very good when you have tried the best.)

Kjell

I have taken to Gibson's whisky, won't dare drink good scotch. I avoid all suits, except really tacky ones, for the same reason. Drove a Chrysler Crossfire (reskinned Mercedes SLK) the other day, now I want one. I am trying to avoid exposure to lenses with the word "limited" or the symbol "*" in there name. I just got a chance to try a friends L series Canon 70-200mm f2.8 lens, I think that may have had an impact as well (sort of like a substitute *). My curiosity for the F* 300mm f4.5 usually turns back to just curiosity when I see the typical asking price.

Seems like nobody has an F*, so I'll chime in since I do own an FA*, and have used an F*, and have read some comments from those who have owned both

Before the "deal I couldn't refuse" appeared for the FA*, I also thought I preferred the F*, mainly for the tripod mount. After using the FA* for over a year, I don't miss the mount, and even tho I have a tripod mount that fits it perfectly, and carry it in the bag, I haven't used it much. The lens is, for me, at least, much easier to use handheld -- and it's light enough that mounting the camera on the tripod isn't that stressful on either the body's tripod socket or the lens mount.

In other fora, the great majority of the comments comparing the two from those who have used both is that they prefer the FA*, mostly because of the focus clutch difference. On the F*, you have to pull back the focus ring to engage the MF mechanism, then turn the switch on the body to MF to disengage the motor. On the FA*, you only have to pull the focus ring back to the MF position. I also found this to be the case, since I tend to switch often for birds in trees where the AF struggles. I will admit that I didn't use the F* enough to get used to the drill, and would probably not mind it as much after more use.

The integrated hood on the F*, is, IMO, not as good as the bayonet hood of the FA*. Some would say that it's more convenient, but the FA* hood is the best hood I've ever seen. It's deep and very rigid, and has easily the best bayonet attachment of any hood I've ever seen with little replaceable leaf springs to add friction. It's a bit fiddly -- only goes on one way, and only goes on one way reversed, but nothing, short of getting crushed by a truck, will get to the front element of the lens. Because of the initial cost and the inability to easily replace either of these lenses, this level of protection is a major feature, IMO.

Bottom line, you probably won't get to really choose between these lenses, so iI wouldn't hesitate if the right deal comes along on an FA*, even tho you think that you'd rather have the F*. Nor would I pass on an F* because I might prefer the features of the FA*. Both are scary sharp at all apertures, control CA and PF better than any tele lens I've ever had (and I have some really good ones). . .they are built like tanks, but with a fine feel of precision. -- The FA*300/4.5 is pretty easily the best lens I've ever owned. . . The DA*300/4 will have to be really something for me to even think about giving up the FA* for it, so I'm not so sure they'll start becoming more available when the DA*s start appearing. . .